A violent reaction to the violation of one's natural rights is a better protection.

Lets face it: politicians, tyrants and conmen (tho I repeat myself) don't fear the written law. They create it, they control it, and they know how to wiggle through the loopholes. They know how to choose words carefully to avoid running afoul of it. Their arguments will always stand when a Judge is forced to consult a dictionary instead of his own moral compass.

What they fear is an unreasonable public that no longer heeds the letter of the law but enforces the spirit of it.We believe in a right to privacy. So whether its shutting the bathroom door or being secure in our email conversations, we expect that to be respected by everyone. If we feel someones violating that then we should vote, protest, or rebel based on those feelings.

If we did this more often, it wouldn't matter that a politician says "The constitution didn't mention text messages...". They'd still get a public cashiering for not understanding what a violation of privacy means to their constituents.

Our reaction to being violated is what makes civil rights matter. Not the rights themselves.Recently I don't think we've been reacting enough to the outrageous things that Washington has done.

No one trusts all businesses. People trust some businesses more than others, and different people put a different value on their level of trust when dealing with various companies. Anyone can choose to stop doing business with any business for any reason. There are alternatives.

Governments, by definition, permit no such choice. They claim a monopoly as the arbiter of the use of force as to the entire landmass within its declared borders, as though they are the owner of every square inch of it all, and some types of authority (esp. as to money) over any person they deem to be a US citizen wherever he might go.

Forcing other people to accept the employment of drug users is wrong. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

"Napolitano has always been an oddman out on Fox since he has always had pretty much the same stance and was even very critical of Bush."

Napolitano iirc is no longer on Fox news...he was let go a couple days after a commentary segment in which he insisted the US's multiple wars in the Middle East are illegal, particularly the US 'action' in Libya that never even went thru Congress's rubber-stamp process.

Phinn:DeaH: Why would you trust all businesses more than your government?

No one trusts all businesses. People trust some businesses more than others, and different people put a different value on their level of trust when dealing with various companies. Anyone can choose to stop doing business with any business for any reason. There are alternatives.

Governments, by definition, permit no such choice. They claim a monopoly as the arbiter of the use of force as to the entire landmass within its declared borders, as though they are the owner of every square inch of it all, and some types of authority (esp. as to money) over any person they deem to be a US citizen wherever he might go.

Forcing other people to accept the employment of drug users is wrong. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

So a company can, as part of its employment, require you surrender certain rights?

If they can force you not to do drugs, can they force you not to vote Republican? (Enforced by having you fill out absentee ballots in front of them.) After all, freedom of association is a basic human right, and they don't want any Republicans around.

AliceBToklasLives:As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA. Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.

Not everything needs to be compared to historic events. Sometimes it's enough to say shiat sucks on its own merits.

/But yeah, it's not that unreasonable, given that it's Fox News Opinion.

snowshovel:"Let me be clear. Courts already allow warrants under our fourth amendment. It is totally constitutional. It has been held so almost from the beginning of this country; some will say from the beginning of this country.

"I would like to talk concretely about the loss of liberty of almost 6,000 people because of the terrorist acts on September 11. I am a little bit more concerned right now about their loss of life. I am even more concerned now that they have lost their lives that thousands of other Americans don't lose their lives because we fail to act and fail to give law enforcement the tools that are essential. In addition to protecting civil liberties, give law enforcement the tools they need so we, to the extent we possibly can, will be able to protect our citizens from events and actions such as happened on September 11."

--Orrin Hatch (D-UT), on the Patriot Act

It's a little cliche, but has not been more apt in at least forty years -Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Richard Jackson and Ben Franklin

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

If the government is the one asking, without probable cause, it is unconstitutional. There is no debate, there is no framing it differently. The government is not allowed to ask ANYONE about pretty much anything without probable cause.That simple.If I send a package via UPS (or Verizon, or any communications company), and the government wants to know what it is, where it's going, and how much it costs, they don't get to ask.I'd consider that an invasion of my privacy. Perhaps I just appreciate privacy more than you do.That doesn't change the fact that their asking, without probable cause (and a warrant from a judge) is unconstitutional.

vygramul:Phinn: DeaH: Why would you trust all businesses more than your government?

No one trusts all businesses. People trust some businesses more than others, and different people put a different value on their level of trust when dealing with various companies. Anyone can choose to stop doing business with any business for any reason. There are alternatives.

Governments, by definition, permit no such choice. They claim a monopoly as the arbiter of the use of force as to the entire landmass within its declared borders, as though they are the owner of every square inch of it all, and some types of authority (esp. as to money) over any person they deem to be a US citizen wherever he might go.

Forcing other people to accept the employment of drug users is wrong. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

So a company can, as part of its employment, require you surrender certain rights?

If they can force you not to do drugs, can they force you not to vote Republican? (Enforced by having you fill out absentee ballots in front of them.) After all, freedom of association is a basic human right, and they don't want any Republicans around.

AliceBToklasLives:As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA. Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.

This is how modern debate works. You disagree with the person, not their position/policy.

Phinn:vygramul: Phinn: DeaH: Why would you trust all businesses more than your government?

No one trusts all businesses. People trust some businesses more than others, and different people put a different value on their level of trust when dealing with various companies. Anyone can choose to stop doing business with any business for any reason. There are alternatives.

Governments, by definition, permit no such choice. They claim a monopoly as the arbiter of the use of force as to the entire landmass within its declared borders, as though they are the owner of every square inch of it all, and some types of authority (esp. as to money) over any person they deem to be a US citizen wherever he might go.

Forcing other people to accept the employment of drug users is wrong. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

So a company can, as part of its employment, require you surrender certain rights?

If they can force you not to do drugs, can they force you not to vote Republican? (Enforced by having you fill out absentee ballots in front of them.) After all, freedom of association is a basic human right, and they don't want any Republicans around.

vygramul:Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: DeaH: Why would you trust all businesses more than your government?

No one trusts all businesses. People trust some businesses more than others, and different people put a different value on their level of trust when dealing with various companies. Anyone can choose to stop doing business with any business for any reason. There are alternatives.

Governments, by definition, permit no such choice. They claim a monopoly as the arbiter of the use of force as to the entire landmass within its declared borders, as though they are the owner of every square inch of it all, and some types of authority (esp. as to money) over any person they deem to be a US citizen wherever he might go.

Forcing other people to accept the employment of drug users is wrong. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

So a company can, as part of its employment, require you surrender certain rights?

If they can force you not to do drugs, can they force you not to vote Republican? (Enforced by having you fill out absentee ballots in front of them.) After all, freedom of association is a basic human right, and they don't want any Republicans around.

Do you know how I know you've never worked at a Hollywood studio?

You mean like Clint Eastwood?

And Reagan! Arnold Schwarzenegger!

Wow, you all have certainly proven that all of Hollywood's corporate power structure is equally welcoming and enthusiastic about hiring non-Leftists.

Has it occurred to the Fark Brain Trust that these anecdotal counter-examples are memorable and noteworthy precisely because Hollywood is overwhelmingly Leftist?

Phinn:vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: DeaH: Why would you trust all businesses more than your government?

No one trusts all businesses. People trust some businesses more than others, and different people put a different value on their level of trust when dealing with various companies. Anyone can choose to stop doing business with any business for any reason. There are alternatives.

Governments, by definition, permit no such choice. They claim a monopoly as the arbiter of the use of force as to the entire landmass within its declared borders, as though they are the owner of every square inch of it all, and some types of authority (esp. as to money) over any person they deem to be a US citizen wherever he might go.

Forcing other people to accept the employment of drug users is wrong. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

So a company can, as part of its employment, require you surrender certain rights?

If they can force you not to do drugs, can they force you not to vote Republican? (Enforced by having you fill out absentee ballots in front of them.) After all, freedom of association is a basic human right, and they don't want any Republicans around.

Do you know how I know you've never worked at a Hollywood studio?

You mean like Clint Eastwood?

And Reagan! Arnold Schwarzenegger!

Wow, you all have certainly proven that all of Hollywood's corporate power structure is equally welcoming and enthusiastic about hiring non-Leftists.

Has it occurred to the Fark Brain Trust that these anecdotal counter-examples are memorable and noteworthy precisely because Hollywood is overwhelmingly Leftist?

Except you're changing the subject. Answer the question: should a company be able to force its employees to vote a certain way?

You're also committing another fallacy. I asked if a corporation should be able to FORCE its employees to vote a certain way, NOT be able to EXCLUDE Republicans. Just like drug users have to stop or be fired, can a Republican be forced to stop or be fired?

vygramul:Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: vygramul: Phinn: DeaH: Why would you trust all businesses more than your government?

No one trusts all businesses. People trust some businesses more than others, and different people put a different value on their level of trust when dealing with various companies. Anyone can choose to stop doing business with any business for any reason. There are alternatives.

Governments, by definition, permit no such choice. They claim a monopoly as the arbiter of the use of force as to the entire landmass within its declared borders, as though they are the owner of every square inch of it all, and some types of authority (esp. as to money) over any person they deem to be a US citizen wherever he might go.

Forcing other people to accept the employment of drug users is wrong. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

So a company can, as part of its employment, require you surrender certain rights?

If they can force you not to do drugs, can they force you not to vote Republican? (Enforced by having you fill out absentee ballots in front of them.) After all, freedom of association is a basic human right, and they don't want any Republicans around.

Do you know how I know you've never worked at a Hollywood studio?

You mean like Clint Eastwood?

And Reagan! Arnold Schwarzenegger!

Wow, you all have certainly proven that all of Hollywood's corporate power structure is equally welcoming and enthusiastic about hiring non-Leftists.

Has it occurred to the Fark Brain Trust that these anecdotal counter-examples are memorable and noteworthy precisely because Hollywood is overwhelmingly Leftist?

Except you're changing the subject. Answer the question: should a company be able to force its employees to vote a certain way?

You're also committing another fallacy. I asked if a corporation should be able to FORCE its employees to vote a certain way, NOT be able to EXCLUDE Republicans. Just like drug users have to stop or be fired, can a Republican be forced to stop or be fired?

That's not force.

Refusing to employ someone is not force.

Penalizing someone for his/her decisions about whom to hire, or not, and for what reasons, is force.

That's what free association means.

Other than Hollywood, how many employers do you see using voting preferences as a condition of employment or advancement? I mean, besides all of the TV networks, the New York Times, most universities, the major New York publishing companies, the EEOC, the EPA, and the IRS?

No one trusts all businesses. People trust some businesses more than others, and different people put a different value on their level of trust when dealing with various companies. Anyone can choose to stop doing business with any business for any reason. There are alternatives.

Governments, by definition, permit no such choice. They claim a monopoly as the arbiter of the use of force as to the entire landmass within its declared borders, as though they are the owner of every square inch of it all, and some types of authority (esp. as to money) over any person they deem to be a US citizen wherever he might go.

Forcing other people to accept the employment of drug users is wrong. Freedom of association is a basic human right.

So a company can, as part of its employment, require you surrender certain rights?

If they can force you not to do drugs, can they force you not to vote Republican? (Enforced by having you fill out absentee ballots in front of them.) After all, freedom of association is a basic human right, and they don't want any Republicans around.

Do you know how I know you've never worked at a Hollywood studio?

You mean like Clint Eastwood?

And Reagan! Arnold Schwarzenegger!

Wow, you all have certainly proven that all of Hollywood's corporate power structure is equally welcoming and enthusiastic about hiring non-Leftists.

Has it occurred to the Fark Brain Trust that these anecdotal counter-examples are memorable and noteworthy precisely because Hollywood is overwhelmingly Leftist?

Except you're changing the subject. Answer the question: should a company be able to force its employees to vote a certain way?

You're also committing another fallacy. I asked if a corporation should be able to FORCE its employees to vote a certain way, NOT be able to EXCLUDE Republicans. Just like drug users have to stop or be fired, can a Re ...

Almost none. But that's not the question. The question is whether they should be able to, and if not, why they can do that with other rights.

vygramul:Almost none. But that's not the question. The question is whether they should be able to, and if not, why they can do that with other rights.

I'm not sure what you're saying, since the way you phrase this is unclear. As I understand it, your question is: Should an employer be allowed to force an employee to vote a certain way lest the employment be terminated?

My best answer is this: I can't answer your question because it's nonsense.

It's a nonsense question because refusing to employ (or continue to employ) someone, who is employed at will, by the mutually-voluntary agreement of both parties, is not force. No one can be rightfully compelled to associate with any other person, or be prohibited from associating with someone on a mutually-voluntary basis, especially as to an economic trade between them. Adult relationships are voluntary.

When you, or your agents acting on your behalf (whom you call "the government"), attack someone for exercising his right of free association, then you are the one using force. You have no rightful power to say what other people are allowed to do, or not to do, when they are acting within their rights and not attacking anyone or stealing anything, under the purported penalty of your retaliation. Since you do not have that power, then you cannot delegate that power to someone else to do it for you.

Not even the Hollywood studios, the major publishers, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, the New York Times or CNN are in any way obligated to hire anyone they don't want to hire, for any reason, apart from the explicit contractual promises they make to their employees.

Phinn:vygramul: Almost none. But that's not the question. The question is whether they should be able to, and if not, why they can do that with other rights.

I'm not sure what you're saying, since the way you phrase this is unclear. As I understand it, your question is: Should an employer be allowed to force an employee to vote a certain way lest the employment be terminated?

My best answer is this: I can't answer your question because it's nonsense.

It's a nonsense question because refusing to employ (or continue to employ) someone, who is employed at will, by the mutually-voluntary agreement of both parties, is not force. No one can be rightfully compelled to associate with any other person, or be prohibited from associating with someone on a mutually-voluntary basis, especially as to an economic trade between them. Adult relationships are voluntary.

When you, or your agents acting on your behalf (whom you call "the government"), attack someone for exercising his right of free association, then you are the one using force. You have no rightful power to say what other people are allowed to do, or not to do, when they are acting within their rights and not attacking anyone or stealing anything, under the purported penalty of your retaliation. Since you do not have that power, then you cannot delegate that power to someone else to do it for you.

Not even the Hollywood studios, the major publishers, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, the New York Times or CNN are in any way obligated to hire anyone they don't want to hire, for any reason, apart from the explicit contractual promises they make to their employees.

Once you have someone employed, you can spring the vote-test on them afterwards. And because they are employed by you, the threat of firing is held over their heads, and it becomes a form of coercion - FORCE.

You are trying to change the subject and refuse to answer the question because you know you are wrong.

kronicfeld:sendtodave: Do you feel that this program is in line with American ideals?

It's perfectly in line with one ideal that Americans have vigorously and repeatedly exhibited over the past decade, namely, that they expect all levels of government to be utterly omniscient and omnipresent in the face of any threat whatsoever, and that anything less than a 100% success rate in preventing such threats from being realized represents gross negligence at least and corrupt, deliberate neglect at worst.

I know this thread is dead, but I thought this article was very astute, and spoke to that point:

Imagine if there were an alternate dystopian reality where law enforcement was 100% effective, such that any potential law offenders knew they would be immediately identified, apprehended, and jailed. If perfect law enforcement had been a reality in Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington since their founding in the 1850s, it seems quite unlikely that these recent changes would have ever come to pass. How could people have decided that marijuana should be legal, if nobody had ever used it? How could states decide that same sex marriage should be permitted, if nobody had ever seen or participated in a same sex relationship?

vygramul:Phinn: vygramul: Almost none. But that's not the question. The question is whether they should be able to, and if not, why they can do that with other rights.

I'm not sure what you're saying, since the way you phrase this is unclear. As I understand it, your question is: Should an employer be allowed to force an employee to vote a certain way lest the employment be terminated?

My best answer is this: I can't answer your question because it's nonsense.

It's a nonsense question because refusing to employ (or continue to employ) someone, who is employed at will, by the mutually-voluntary agreement of both parties, is not force. No one can be rightfully compelled to associate with any other person, or be prohibited from associating with someone on a mutually-voluntary basis, especially as to an economic trade between them. Adult relationships are voluntary.

When you, or your agents acting on your behalf (whom you call "the government"), attack someone for exercising his right of free association, then you are the one using force. You have no rightful power to say what other people are allowed to do, or not to do, when they are acting within their rights and not attacking anyone or stealing anything, under the purported penalty of your retaliation. Since you do not have that power, then you cannot delegate that power to someone else to do it for you.

Not even the Hollywood studios, the major publishers, NBC News, CBS News, ABC News, the New York Times or CNN are in any way obligated to hire anyone they don't want to hire, for any reason, apart from the explicit contractual promises they make to their employees.

Once you have someone employed, you can spring the vote-test on them afterwards. And because they are employed by you, the threat of firing is held over their heads, and it becomes a form of coercion - FORCE.

You are trying to change the subject and refuse to answer the question because you know you are wrong.

What kind of Cartoon Imagination World do you live in where employers, who are not subject to laws against political discrimination (and therefore have no reason to hide their political expectations), would routinely go to the trouble of hiring employees who disagree with the company politically, only to "spring" this voting demand on them after they're hired?

You've never hired anyone for anything, have you? Never tun a business with more than 5 employees, right?

It's actually expensive and wasteful to hire people you don't want or plan to keep around. And what would motivate employers to do this, in this cartoon-world of yours where employers look for ways to mind-fark their employees? So they can get their jollies? Do you honestly see this Secret Surprise Voting Trap being a common practice?

I have no idea what question you think I have not answered. I have said repeatedly that everyone should be free to hire or fire anyone for any reason, or agree to whatever terms they both find acceptable. Likewise, everyone is free to accept or quit any job, for any reason, without retaliation. If that involves taking (or refusing to take) this Fantasy Land Voting Test that you've dreamed up, as a condition of employment, then so be it. It's a stupid question about a stupid (non-existent) employment practice, but the answer is that firing people for stupid reasons should not be illegal.

Firing someone is not force. Unwanted? Sure. But not forceful. That's just false, and false to the point of being silly.

Phinn:What kind of Cartoon Imagination World do you live in where employers, who are not subject to laws against political discrimination (and therefore have no reason to hide their political expectations), would routinely go to the trouble of hiring employees who disagree with the company politically, only to "spring" this voting demand on them after they're hired?

You've never hired anyone for anything, have you? Never tun a business with more than 5 employees, right?

It's actually expensive and wasteful to hire people you don't want or plan to keep around. And what would motivate employers to do this, in this cartoon-world of yours where employers look for ways to mind-fark their employees? So they can get their jollies? Do you honestly see this Secret Surprise Drug Test being a common practice?

FTFY, and yes. At one time, there was no such thing. At some point, companies adopted drug testing. Employees were lost, despite the cost. So apparently, someone was willing to pay that price despite the cost in order to make sure the guy who bags your groceries doesn't ever do drugs.

And don't pretend this is about being impaired on the job. We don't give beathalyzer tests.

I have no idea what question you think I have not answered. I have said repeatedly that everyone should be free to hire or fire anyone for any reason, or agree to whatever terms they both find acceptable. Likewise, everyone is free to accept or quit any job, for any reason, without retaliation. If that involves taking (or refusing to take) this Fantasy Land Voting Test that you've dreamed up, as a condition of employment, then so be it. It's a stupid question about a stupid (non-existent) employment practice, but the answer is that firing people for stupid reasons should not be illegal.

Maybe George Soros just bought a company and doesn't want any employees who vote for Republicans. A change in policy for his new acquisition. After all, if he's willing to just throw away millions on candidates, why not on actual votes? Maybe the new CEO is gay, and he values his liberties more than the money he'll lose.

Firing someone is not force. Unwanted? Sure. But not forceful. That's just false, and false to the point of being silly.

Using coercion is force. Stop pretending physical force is the only meaning or I'll be forced to quote the dictionary and you'll be forced to agree.

vygramul:Phinn: What kind of Cartoon Imagination World do you live in where employers, who are not subject to laws against political discrimination (and therefore have no reason to hide their political expectations), would routinely go to the trouble of hiring employees who disagree with the company politically, only to "spring" this voting demand on them after they're hired?

You've never hired anyone for anything, have you? Never tun a business with more than 5 employees, right?

It's actually expensive and wasteful to hire people you don't want or plan to keep around. And what would motivate employers to do this, in this cartoon-world of yours where employers look for ways to mind-fark their employees? So they can get their jollies? Do you honestly see this Secret Surprise Drug Test being a common practice?

FTFY, and yes. At one time, there was no such thing. At some point, companies adopted drug testing. Employees were lost, despite the cost. So apparently, someone was willing to pay that price despite the cost in order to make sure the guy who bags your groceries doesn't ever do drugs.

And don't pretend this is about being impaired on the job. We don't give beathalyzer tests.

I have no idea what question you think I have not answered. I have said repeatedly that everyone should be free to hire or fire anyone for any reason, or agree to whatever terms they both find acceptable. Likewise, everyone is free to accept or quit any job, for any reason, without retaliation. If that involves taking (or refusing to take) this Fantasy Land Voting Test that you've dreamed up, as a condition of employment, then so be it. It's a stupid question about a stupid (non-existent) employment practice, but the answer is that firing people for stupid reasons should not be illegal.

Maybe George Soros just bought a company and doesn't want any employees who vote for Republicans. A change in policy for his new acquisition. After all, if he's willing to just throw away millions on candidates, why not on actual votes? Maybe the new CEO is gay, and he values his liberties more than the money he'll lose.

Firing someone is not force. Unwanted? Sure. But not forceful. That's just false, and false to the point of being silly.

Using coercion is force. Stop pretending physical force is the only meaning or I'll be forced to quote the dictionary and you'll be forced to agree.

Companies began drug testing employees because of government -- before government destroyed the right of free association, an employer could decide on his own if an employee was too erratic, unreliable or unproductive to continue the relationship.

With the advent of governmental intrusion on employment privacy, employers were "penalized" (i.e., attacked by the State) if they terminated someone "wrongfully." They had to use objective scientific testing in order to defend themselves against lawsuits and EEOC attacks.

The other governmental threat came from personal injury law -- drug-using employees cause more industrial and traffic accidents. Government courts do not allow employers or executives of companies to evade the costs of the harms caused by their rogue underlings. (Obama, as the chief executive of the federal bureaucracy, however, accepts none of the responsibility of "rogue underlings" that private employers are forced by government to accept.)

If Soros wants to eliminate the valuable employees in a newly bought company, that's his stupidity to deal with. His more-rational competitors will out-compete him.

The only meaning of "force" that I am using is the one the government uses when it defines its criminal law. It means violence or the threat of future violence.

You have no right to use force to compel someone to employ, or to continue to employ, or to conduct any other kind of business with you, against his will. Likewise, you have no right to force someone to work for you. (We call that "slavery.") That is an act of aggressive violence, no matter how much you try to sanitize it.

Phinn:Companies began drug testing employees because of government -- before government destroyed the right of free association, an employer could decide on his own if an employee was too erratic, unreliable or unproductive to continue the relationship.

With the advent of governmental intrusion on employment privacy, employers were "penalized" (i.e., attacked by the State) if they terminated someone "wrongfully." They had to use objective scientific testing in order to defend themselves against lawsuits and EEOC attacks.

The other governmental threat came from personal injury law -- drug-using employees cause more industrial and traffic accidents. Government courts do not allow employers or executives of companies to evade the costs of the harms caused by their rogue underlings. (Obama, as the chief executive of the federal bureaucracy, however, accepts none of the responsibility of "rogue underlings" that private employers are forced by government to accept.)

If Soros wants to eliminate the valuable employees in a newly bought company, that's his stupidity to deal with. His more-rational competitors will out-compete him.

The only meaning of "force" that I am using is the one the government uses when it defines its criminal law. It means violence or the threat of future violence.

You have no right to use force to compel someone to employ, or to continue to employ, or to conduct any other kind of business with you, against his will. Likewise, you have no right to force someone to work for you. (We call that "slavery.") That is an act of aggressive violence, no matter how much you try to sanitize it.

So, ultimately, your answer is, "Yes - an employer may require an employee to vote for Democrats in order to maintain employment." Gotcha.